1 of 18

2 of 18

Quality Assurance Statement

IIAR has met the standards and requirements of the Registered Continuing Education Program. Credit earned on completion of this activity will be reported to RCEP at RCEP.net, and a certificate of completion will be issued. Certificates are not to be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by RCEP.

To qualify for a Certificate of Completion, learners must:

1.) Be in attendance for the duration of the activity.

2.) Send your PDH Recording Form to IIAR or fill one out on the IIAR Annual Conference app.

3 of 18

Introduction

Consultant – Peter Thomas, P.E. (Resource Compliance)

IIAR – Lowell Randel

Cal/OSHA – Michael Boyle (Cal/OSHA Process Safety Management Unit)

CUPA/CalARP – Dennis Karidis (Sacramento County)

End User – Drew Hart (E&J Gallo Winery)

Panel Members

4 of 18

Regulatory Panel �A Consultant’s Perspective��Peter Thomas, P.E.�Resource Compliance

5 of 18

California

What starts in California, rarely stays in California.

California ARB phasing out HCFCs and promoting natural refrigerants
Bans refrigerant greater than 2,200 GWP starting 1/1/2025 (R-404A, R-507)
Bans refrigerant greater than 1,500 GWP starting 1/1/2030 (R-410A)

Bans refrigerant greater than 750 GWP starting 1/1/2033 (R-134A, R-448A, R-449A)

If you aren’t from California, I want to warn you against tuning this out, because we’ve all heard the maxim that “what starts in California, rarely stays in California.”

California’s Air Resources Board, or ARB, is aggressively restricting the use of synthetic refrigerants. In October 2022, Governor Newsom signed SB 1206 which will ban the sale of certain virgin refrigerants based on global warming potential. By limiting the sale of virgin refrigerants, California will see an increased demand for reclaimed gases and many system owners will be forced to replace equipment if refrigerant is not available.

As you can see on this slide, there is a phaseout schedule, which ends 10 years from now by banning all refrigerants with GWP greater than 750 which includes common refrigerants such as R-134A.

For owner’s that continue to use high-GWP systems, the burden of compliance is ever increasing as California requires annual reports to be submitted through their web portal regarding leak checks, repairs, and system inventory. Fines for non compliance can be hefty.

6 of 18

7 of 18

Incentives

8 of 18

Low Charge Ammonia

< 500 lbs of Ammonia

This flows well into the topic of low charge ammonia refrigeration systems.

Low charge systems have gained popularity throughout the world in the last decade and are likely to continue to as pressure builds to retrofit older halocarbon systems.

The system on this slide is skid mounted and uses less than 500 lbs of ammonia which is under the threshold for the CalARP regulation that you’ll hear more about from Dennis later in this panel. Needless to say, it is advantageous to stay under the 500 lb threshold to avoid all of the CalARP requirements.

Due to the regulatory climate toward synthetic refrigeration systems and the burden of complying with RMP, PSM, and CalARP, I’ve seen a significant increase in the number low charge systems, such as this.

Facilities are even finding it worthwhile to install multiple low-charge ammonia systems in order to stay under the 500 lb threshold, rather than installing one larger covered process.

9 of 18

10 of 18

What Makes California Unique?

RMP Submissions

It is widely believed that ammonia regulations in California are stricter than most other areas of the US. This is certainly true in many ways. But what makes California so unique? I’d like to highlight just a few of the many differences California businesses have to juggle.

***CLICK***

If you have ever submitted an RMP to the USEPA then you are familiar with the Central Data Exchange or CDX website displayed on the right. CDX is used for all Federal RMP Submissions, but California has no such submission portal and since the CalARP regulation requires RMPs to be submitted at the county level, each agency can have a different process that must be followed. For example, San Joaquin County requires businesses to use their Environmental Health Department approved form for all RMP submissions. In many cases this creates double work, since the RMP must be prepared in CDX and then again for the California submission.

If you operate sites in multiple counties within California, it can be tricky to stay on top of each jurisdiction's expectation.

11 of 18

Are public receptors within the distance to the endpoint for a worst-case release

Is the process subject to PSM?

Is the process classified in one of the listed NAICS codes?

Have offsite impacts occurred due to a release from the process?

Process is subject to Program 1 Requirements

Process is subject to Program 3 Requirements

Process is subject to Program 2 Requirements

Yes

No

12 of 18

Are public receptors within the distance to the endpoint for a worst-case release

Is the process subject to PSM?

Is the process classified in one of the listed NAICS codes?

Have offsite impacts occurred due to a release from the process?

Process is subject to Program 1 Requirements

Process is subject to Program 3 Requirements

Process is subject to Program 2 Requirements

Yes

No

Yes

13 of 18

Are public receptors within the distance to the endpoint for a worst-case release

Is the process subject to PSM?

Is the process classified in one of the listed NAICS codes?

Have offsite impacts occurred due to a release from the process?

Process is subject to Program 1 Requirements

Process is subject to Program 3 Requirements

Process is subject to Program 2 Requirements

Yes

No

Yes

14 of 18

What Makes California Unique?

CalARP §2760.2(c)

(c) The PHA shall address:

(1) The hazards of the process;

(2) The identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences;

(3) Engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases. (Acceptable detection methods might include process monitoring and control instrumentation with alarms, and detection hardware such as hydrocarbon sensors.);

(4) Consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls;

(5) Stationary source siting;

(6) Human factors;

(7) A qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls; and,

(8) The PHA shall include the consideration of external events, including seismic events, if applicable. PHAs completed for other programs where external events were not considered shall be updated to include external events.

Seismic Assessments

15 of 18

Seismic Assessment Guidance Document

16 of 18

Seismic Walkdown

17 of 18

What Makes California Unique?

Contra Costa County Example

CUPA

Drew will speak to this in more detail from the end user perspective, but working in California can be challenging because there can be a wide variance in how CalARP is enforced. If you operate sites in multiple counties, it can be tricky to navigate compliance.

Contra Costa County, for example, is one of the more stringent counties due to the refineries located in their jurisdiction and has added several county-specific requirements for CalARP facilities. While their strict requirements were aimed at refineries, small cold storages are also forced to comply with the stringent rules. One such requirement is performing a security vulnerability assessment. A routine Contra Costa County inspection can take several days or more.

This makes consulting in California different. We are often learning the nuances of each county to help keep our clients and industry safe and out of trouble.

18 of 18

What Makes California Unique?

In California, release reporting is not required on the basis of a threshold quantity. Rather, any release or threatened release must be reported. CA H&SC §25510(a) requires that a facility must immediately report any release or threatened release of a hazardous material to the unified program agency, and to the Office of Emergency Services

Release Reporting

The final unique California requirement that I would like to highlight relates to release reporting. Federally, ammonia releases over 100 lbs in 24 hours must be reported within 15 minutes to National Response Center.

California, on the other hand, requires any release or threatened release to be reported immediately. You heard me right. There is no minimum threshold. According to the regulation, any ammonia quantity released must be reported. As we all know, ammonia systems will leak to some extent over time through packing glands, seals, etc. Most regulators that I’ve interacted with do allow for a common-sense approach to the implementation of this rule, but it is another curveball that California businesses have to juggle.

And with that, I’ll trade spots with Lowell as he provides a Federal perspective on the regulatory climate.